I think the point was that "Buddhist" is probably not the most apt word to describe the people who did these things. Buddhist may well be part of their cultural

I think the point was that "Buddhist" is probably not the most apt word to describe the people who did these things. Buddhist may well be part of their cultural or personal identities, but to most Americans and Europeans at least, I suspect that labeling these people primarily as "Buddhist" is not actually useful, and in fact in the minds of an audience mostly unfamiliar with Buddhism, much less with the society where this happened in Myanmar, such a style tends to associate Buddhism with the activities described, when there's no link. Ultimately, using "Buddhists" and "Muslims" to distinguish the two groups is just sloppy reporting. Again, this may be an important difference between members of the two groups, but like any conflict between groups, the differences in identity are what get played up and pointed out, when the differences are rarely the _reason_ for the conflict. They're a way to manipulate people into joining a side, or to cultivate political resentment, or to explain a complex situation in a simple way for a mass audience. But such reporting only buys into and amplifies the artificial distinctions that feed the conflict. The reporters do no favors to these people by oversimplifying the situation.